HC Deb 25 June 1880 vol 253 cc893-919
MR. STEVENSON,

in rising to move— That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient that the Law which limits the hours of sale of intoxicating drinks on Sunday in England and Wales should be amended so as to apply to the whole of the day, said, that in bringing forward this important question he was greatly encouraged by the result of the discussion which took place only a week ago on the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson). He believed his hon. Friend would not think he was criticizing in a hostile spirit the Resolution which he introduced, if he submitted that the Resolution he (Mr. Stevenson) had to propose was one of a much simpler character, and attended, in many respects, with fewer difficulties, and ought, therefore, more readily to command the attention of the House. There was no doubt about "Sunday closing," though some hon. Members had expressed a doubt as to the meaning of "Local Option." There was no question of compensation connected with this Resolution. He was glad to think that no question of com- pensation could possibly arise in connection with this Resolution, because, during the discussion of an analogous measure relating to Ireland, the question of compensation was considered and deliberately rejected as having no foundation. Nine-tenths of the population of Ireland were under the régime of Sunday closing, and the whole of Scotland between 20 and 30 years had been under a similar law. It appeared to be a great anomaly that the only trade to be carried on openly and generally on Sunday should be that of persons who, under the name of Licensed Victuallers, furnished anything rather than victuals, and little in the way of refreshments, to travellers. The contraction of the hours of sale on Sunday began in London. The Preamble to the Act of 1848 recited that provisions which had been in force in the Metropolitan Police district for some time had been attended with great benefits. A further contraction was made by the Act of the present Lord Winmarleigh, when Colonel Wilson Patten, which closed public-houses in the afternoon. It was a misunderstanding to suppose that there was any connection between that Act and the Hyde Park riots, for the Act had been in successful operation 10 months, and the riots were brought about by an attempt to limit Sunday trading in other articles in certain parts of London. Some publicans took advantage of the opportunity to direct the attention of Parliament to the subject, and in a panic the number of open hours was increased from seven to eight-and-half; but still afternoon closing was retained. In 1868, the last year of the £10 householder Parliament, Mr. Abel Smith brought in a Bill to reduce the hours and to alter the character of the sale from consumption on to consumption off the premises. It was said the last Session of that Parliament was chosen because the promoters of the measure dared not have proposed it in the reformed Parliament; but the real state of the case was just the other way, for in the reformed Parliament there was greater possibility of dealing with the subject than there was in that which represented the £10 householders. The new Parliament had the better means of knowing what the views of the constituencies were. He believed the great majority of the people desired Sunday closing. He believed that public opinion was ripe for this measure. What was wanted was, not a partial measure, but total closing— not a compromise, but full liberty to all in the trade to take a day of rest for themselves and their families. The last Parliament might have been considered a most unlikely one to deal with the question, and yet it passed the Irish Sunday Closing measure, because there was irresistible proof that it was desired by the people of the country. Their feeling was elicited by a house to house canvass, carried on with self-denial and honesty; and the votes of the Irish Members also showed that the people of Ireland desired what they succeeded in getting. In a similar way in England house to house canvassing had been carried on for many years, and with a corresponding result. It showed that about eight householders were in favour of the Sunday closing to one against it. When a question was put as to a modified measure, it was found that there was just as great a majority against that. Therefore, he wished to give the people, not what they did not ask for, but that which they did ask for, which was total Sunday closing. Last year's discussion of this subject disclosed an advance of public opinion for which many were not prepared. He was then pressed by many friends of temperance in the House to make a concession; and before the division, which was on the second reading of the Bill, he said that he would accept, in the way of clauses, the modification indicated, which was the opening of public-houses for two separate hours for the sale of dinner and of supper beer. He was not prepared to make that concession now; he should hope for better terms from this Parliament. The hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. J. W. Pease) wanted to advise a middle course with the hope of reaching the final result with greater safety. But what he wanted to know was how long they were to be in reaching Sunday closing? He wanted it now. But if it was to be approached gradually, was there to be the chance of adopting Sunday closing in any one parish? He could understand one kind of compromise—one of areas, such as the exemption of towns in Ireland, whose turn, he hoped, would come very soon. He could not, however, understand a compromise which gave what nobody asked for, and of which they had no experience; whereas the simpler plan of total closing had been tried over the whole of Scotland and in nine-tenths of Ireland. The compromise was proposed by Members to their constituencies, and not by the constituencies to their Members. The publicans did not propose it, for they wanted an unbroken day of rest for themselves and their families, and a compromise would not do that. After the last debate, he received a letter from a publican in the neighbourhood of London expressing the conviction that Sunday closing would be a great boon to the great majority of Licensed Victuallers and no material inconvenience to the public, and that it would, to some extent, prevent excessive drinking by working men, to which they were tempted by leisure when they had their wages in their pockets. The nine hours' movement gave the working man 54 hours a-week; but the open hours of the publican were double that, or 108 hours a-week. Thinking the publican who had written to him knew something of the question, he wrote to him about the stale beer difficulty, and the reply received was a valuable one for the House, for it stated that the difficulty was practically got over now by families who wanted their dinner beer earlier than the houses were open on Sunday, who obtained it on the Saturday night, and kept it in stone bottles to their own satisfaction. Another publican wrote him a letter, in which he said— Many of my customers at the present time get their beer for Sunday's use in stone bottles, for which they leave a small deposit; and although, no doubt, the beer when it comes to be used is not as good as when it was originally taken from the cask, yet it is far better than thousands of those beverages for the use of private families which are sold in 9 or in 18 gallon casks under the name of table beer. Certainly, the small convenience of being able to obtain one's dinner beer direct from the public-house on Sundays was purchased at a very great cost indeed, the price being the toil and bondage of the publican and of his servants for the seven days of the week. His object, however, was to give them a complete break of one day in the week. In fact, some of the large public-houses never opened at all upon Sundays, and those employed in them felt the advantage of the rest. He objected to the compromise which had been suggested, on the ground that it would not effect any substantial improvement in the existing state of things, and would continue the temptation to Sunday tippling which existed under the present law. As far as the persons who kept public-houses were concerned, he did not think that they wished to carry on their business on Sundays. The profit which they made on that day was not particularly large; and they had, as he believed, a wish not only to rest themselves, but to give a day of rest to those in their employ. There was, of course, on their part a great show of opposition; but no one was willing to work continuously for seven days if he could get off for six. There was, at all events, considerable difference of opinion between them on this question of Sunday closing, as he gathered from the Report of a Conference of Licensed Victuallers lately held at Newcastle. In carrying out this opposition, the Protection Society of London, when he was about to bring forward this question early in the present year, sent out a number of Petitions among the trade to be exhibited for signature in every public-house. All persons above 16 years of age of both sexes were invited to sign it; and The Morning Advertiser, in March last, in a leading article, said:— We are anxious to point out to the trade, a great many of whom display too much apathy on the question, the absolute necessity there is that they should look to the instructions of the Committee. Still, the result was not very satisfactory. In one town the average number of signatures was six to each public-house. In another town they averaged 17, and in another 21. This, he thought, showed that the publicans were not greatly opposed to it. Indeed, a canvass from house to house, which Dr. Norman Kerr originated at Jarrow, showed they were in favour of it. Again, as regarded their customers, it was not the poorer classes who wished to have the public-houses kept open, but the members of the middle classes of society. The greatest enemies of the public-houses were the wives of the labouring classes, and they were unanimous in wishing to have them closed on Sunday. He regretted to find the Bishop of Llandaff stating his opinion in favour of keeping them open, as there was no district in England which suffered more from Sunday drinking than a portion of his diocese. The district in question was a colliery one, and he found that on Monday there were 5,178 men in the pits; on Friday there were 1,000 men more. In other words, on Monday morning, owing to how they had spent their Sunday, there were 1,000 incapable of resuming their work, which represented a great loss to their families. But, more than that, whereas the quantity of coal raised on Monday was only six tons per man, the quantity raised on Friday was eight tons per man, showing how much their physical energy was impaired by Sunday drinking. The operation of the Forbes-Mackenzie Act in Scotland had been severely tested—first, by the inquiry of a Royal Commission, which in its Report demonstrated by statistics that not only had committals for Sunday drinking been reduced to less than one-tenth of what they had been before the passing of the Act, but that Saturday and Monday drinking had been greatly reduced also. It had been tested, too, by the working of the Irish Sunday Closing Act, which had been productive of the most beneficial effects; so much so, that the Dublin Correspondent of The Times was able to state that the operation of the Act had falsified the predictions of its opponents and exceeded the expectations of its supporters, and that not only had the consumption of intoxicating drinks fallen off, but there were fewer families in want, and drinking in she been houses had become somewhat mythical. If they really wanted to understand all the evils of Sunday drinking, they should, as he had done, go round the public-houses and see how the trade was carried on. No one could do that without feeling a desire to put down so much misery and mischief. So far he was a Sabbatarian that he desired that every person should enjoy one day's rest in seven, and the burden of proof to the contrary lay upon those who denied it. In the interest, therefore, of the general public, and especially in the interest of the 300,000 or 400,000 persons who were deprived of a day of rest by the operation of the existing law, he begged to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice.

MR. BIRLEY,

in seconding the Motion, pointed out that not only had the result of the canvass been uniformly in favour of the proposal to close public-houses on Sundays, but there had been vast public meetings in support of the object, attended not by motley crowds, but, for the most part, by stalwart labourers who were in earnest in the cause of temperance. There had also been a great number of Petitions, which, however, he would pass over, because he knew that many hon. Gentlemen did not think much of Petitions. There had also been Memorials from the clergy and other considerable bodies. What were the arguments against the proposal? By some it was urged that as the rich man had his club to go to on a Sunday, so the poor man ought to have the benefit of his beerhouse. But gin palaces were not clubs; and he hesitated to indulge in the Utopian hope that working men would patronize clubs very largely apart from indulgence in intoxicating liquors. Others, again, said that they ought to rely on the gradual improvement in the habits of society. It was said that not long ago persons in the highest classes thought it no shame to be seen in a state of intoxication; and it was argued that they would soon see the day when neither artizans nor labourers would allow themselves to be seen in that state without a sense of self-reproach, and a still greater sense of reproach from their comrades. He could not help thinking that, in this argument, they ventured upon very severe reflections upon their grandfathers. No doubt, there were grandfathers and grandfathers; but he thought the state of the case was sometimes put more strongly than the facts justified. Moreover, the history of this country did not favour the conclusion that there had been a gradual improvement in the habits of the people in this respect. Authorities of the highest value bore their testimony to the fact that the greatest outbreak of intemperate habits took place in the first half of the last century, when the distillation of gin began in this country, and when the tax upon it was so small. He was not sure whether there was any tax at all in the first instance. The people were able to get drunk for the most insignificant sum. When the regulations were made more stringent, there was a conspicuous change in the habits of the people. Again, as to the habits of the higher classes of society—and he said it without any disrespect—he was not sure that the decrease in intoxication was not more due to the custom of drinking lighter wine than to the fact that there was less actual consumption of liquor; and he suspected that casual drinking was rather on the increase in this country. As to the influence of education, he believed that without the power of moral control in the nature of the persons themselves, strengthened by religious teaching, they would not preserve even the persons who were educated from the temptation to intemperate habits. He trusted that Sunday closing would be carried to the extent which this Resolution suggested; but he would be glad to see even a mitigation of the present evil, and he would suggest to the Home Secretary to issue six days' licences as a rule, instead of seven days' licences. That would be a move in the right direction. He believed the publicans as a body were favourable to the proposal of his hon. Friend, as, without it, it was impossible for them to indulge in any ramble or excursion, or in any relaxation on the Sunday, which they desired as much as other people. Then something might be said on behalf of the 200,000 or 300,000 barmen and barmaids, including pot-boys, who would be affected by the change. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had the Factory Acts in his charge, which prevent the over labour of women and boys in factories, and he might well extend the beneficial restrictions in the direction of beershops. It was a very common thing to say that grown-up men were able to take care of themselves in regard to temptation. He held a different view. He thought they ought to agree to abolish certain passages in the Lord's Prayer if they were to maintain that causes of temptation were not to be avoided as much as possible. Sir Walter Scott, in the days before temperance societies were established, spoke of the difficulties a working man had in passing a given number of public- houses. He was a man little influenced by any fanatical views; but he seemed to feel that there was a point at which the repetition of temptation acted upon a man to a degree that those who were not so influenced could scarcely understand. They all knew that even well-principled persons were not always able to resist such temptations. It was a matter of wonder to some people that, while men in the higher classes were often indifferent to Sunday closing, those in the lower strata were almost unanimously in favour of it. The fact was that these latter were the men who knew the terrible ravages of intemperance. If it were not for these men they would hear little of temperance societies or temperance reforms. These men who attended the meetings and signed the Memorials did it not for the sake of depriving their neighbours of a moderate indulgence; far from it. He did not think English people were of that disposition. But it was because in their own persons or in their families, or their immediate neighbours, they saw the fearful ravages from that cause. They saw it in every street and in every village. It was not merely a question of broken fortunes; it was a question of broken homesteads and broken hearts. These were the causes which had led public opinion in this direction. He had great pleasure in seconding the Motion.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it is expedient that the Law which limits the hours of sale of intoxicating drinks on Sunday in England and Wales should he amended so as to apply to the whole of that day,"—(Mr. Stevenson,) —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. J. W. PEASE,

who had an Amendment on the Paper proposing that the law limiting the hours of sale of intoxicating drinks on Sunday should be amended so as to apply— As nearly as possible to the whole of that day, making such provision only for the sale during prohibited hours of beer, ale, porter, cider, or perry, for consumption off the premises, in the country; and for the requirements of the inhabitants of the Metropolitan district, as may be found needful to secure public cooperation in any alteration of the law, said, that he was sure the House must concur in the remarks of the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Birley) in depreciation of the prevalence and the evils of intemperance. Little, he said, had yet been done in the direction of Sunday closing, because the advocates of that step were not content to proceed by degrees, but strove to reach their object at a bound. He was as ready as anyone to give the publican the opportunity of taking rest; but it should be remembered that the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath, and that those who desired to use intoxicating liquors on a Sunday must have somebody to supply them. On that account, while thoroughly sympathizing in the object which the Amendment contemplated, he had given Notice of an Amendment to it, and as he could not move it in consequence of the Rules of the House, he found himself obliged to support his hon. Friend's Amendment, and when it became the substantive question he should ask leave to amend it in the sense of which he had given Notice. The advocates of total Sunday closing desired to remove temptation from the lower classes. Well, so did he; but they could advance in that direction without limiting very materially the liberty of the people to act as they might think fit with regard to supplying their homes with intoxicants on Sunday. The evidence that had been taken before Mr. Abel Smith's Committee proved conclusively that it was not necessary, in order to accomplish most of what was desired, to take the temptations out of the way of people during the whole of the Sabbath. He did not see why those who advocated the total closing of public-houses on the Sabbath day did not advocate the adoption of the same course on every other day in the week. If public-houses were to be shut throughout the whole of Sunday, it must be because they were intrinsically bad institutions; and if they were intrinsically bad on Sunday, they surely were so on Monday, Tuesday, and the remaining days of the week. He held that the advocates of temperance ought to aim at accomplishing their object without trenching too much upon the liberty of the people, and to refrain from taking an extreme step such as that proposed by his hon. Friend—a step which it would be perfectly impossible to carry into practice. In large towns it was proposed to close all restaurants and refreshment places except to the bonâ fide travellers and travellers at railway restaurants. That meant perfunctory teetotalism for all who did not travel or keep a store, or who had no clubs to dine at. Then the Resolution made no exemption whatever in the case of the Metropolitan district. Not many Sundays ago, being anxious to observe for himself how public-houses were used on Sundays, he went through the streets in the neighbourhood of the Broadway, Westminster, and, contrary to what was represented, he found that there was no rush, as soon as the houses were opened, by people anxious to get drink, but that neat and respectable girls, children, and young men were coming out of the public-houses with their small jugs of beer for home use; and he felt it would be impossible for him to vote for entire Sunday closing, and so deprive those people of their beer, whilst he could go home to his own luncheon where liquors were on the table, and supplied by his own servants. Mr. John Tremayne, who represented Cornwall in the late Parliament, and who took great interest in this question, had estimated as the result of his investigations that in London there were thousands of people who had no other place for their Sunday dinners but the restaurants and public-houses— a class consisting of those who lived in lodgings, and were accustomed, during their business hours in London, daily to get their principal meal at a restaurant. It would, therefore, be perfectly impossible, with due regard to the legitimate wants of the population, to have entire Sunday closing in the Metropolis, unless this House, backed by the country, came to the conclusion to have perfunctory teetotalism throughout the Kingdom. There was another aspect of the case. On another Sunday he came down the road leading from Epping Forest, and found that from Epping Forest to London there was an unceasing traffic. The large public-houses were surrounded by people who were taking their glass of liquor, and bringing it out to their wives and children, which might be morally wrong. ["No!"] He formed an estimate that on three miles of that road there were no less than 7,000 people travelling; and, although the public-houses were surrounded, there was nothing that could be called disorder, but the people seemed to be enjoying themselves, and he, for one, saw no crime in their doing so. But these travellers, according to his hon. Friend, were to have what they wanted; and whilst they were supplied the quiet people who stayed at home were to be compelled by law to go without liquor. This question had been attentively considered by the Lords' Committee, which was composed of men fully competent to take a statesmanlike and just view of it. The conclusion they came to was that there could not be absolute Sunday closing; but they suggested, as regarded the Metropolis, that the houses should remain open as now—from 1 o'clock until 3, and from 6 until 11; but that during the latter term the liquor should be sold to be consumed off the premises only. He thought the people of the Metropolis were prepared to accept shorter hours—namely, from 1 to 3, and from 7 to 10 o'clock, which would meet the requirements and wants of the Metropolis; and he would, in their case, allow the sale both on and off the premises during both terms. It was argued that as it was with London so it was with other large towns; but, even if it were, there were only some 14 or 15 very large towns representing a population of about 3,000,000; and if they excluded all the considerable towns they would only cover a population of about 6,000,000. There would thus be left 16,000,000, to whom they could deal out more stringent provisions. He was in favour of a similar reduction in hours to that which had been recommended by the Lords' Committee; and he would desire to put an end to the sale of spirits in the country on Sunday, so that in the restricted hours which he recommended the consumption would be limited to beer, cider, perry, and other similar drinks which would, not keep fresh for any length of time, and for consumption off the premises only. His hon. Friend had received a letter from a South Durham clergyman. He had received letters from dozens of country clergymen, who had told him that the solution which he proposed of the question was the only practicable one, and those letters were from persons of both political Parties. It had been said that they could with safety follow the example of Ireland and Scotland in this matter. But there was a great difference between those countries and England. They were essentially spirit-drinking countries; whereas beer was the staple drink of England, and beer was a drink which it was essential to get fresh, and it could not be expected that people would like to keep it in stone jugs or in any other way. It would pot be wise to drive people to keep stocks of been in barrels at home; the cure might turn out worse than the disease. He believed his hon. Friend and those who thought with him had mistaken the feeling of the country. They had spoken of Petitions; but they had deduced no sound argument from those Petitions. Up to the 18th of June there were 74 Petitions, signed by 167,000 persons, against the Resolution, and 1,500 signed by 174,000 in its favour. His hon. Friend had also spoken of the statistics that had been circulated throughout the House as to the results of a house-to-house canvass in several towns; but the canvass had been very imperfect. Of this he would give instances. In Aberdare 4,069 only out of a total of 6,500 houses had been canvassed; in Barrow 1,272 out of 2,700; in Bradford 6,191 out of 29,000; in Darlington 2,600 out of 4,631, and Darlington was known to be a very temperate place; in Canterbury 1,134 out of 4,171, and in Liverpool 44,000 out of 78,000. Besides, this was not a householders' question. It concerned rather that part of the population which was not composed of householders, but lived in lodgings, and were dependent upon the restaurants for their dinners who would most feel the inconvenience. What became, then, of that great consensus of opinion which had been spoken of? Those only who were least interested had been canvassed. It was fallacious, also, to speak of what worked well for Ireland and Scotland as being necessarily well adapted to England. The towns in those countries were not nearly so large as those of England. When the Sunday Closing Act for Ireland was passed, the five principal cities were exempted, and were called by some the five cities of the plain, or the five cities of refuge for the man-slayer; but the largest of those cities had smaller populations than most of the manufacturing towns in England. In Scotland—Edinburgh had only 169,000; Aberdeen 60,000; Dundee 108,000. Glasgow, with its 500,000, was the only town which compared with the largest towns in England. Nor was there absolute Sunday closing in those towns. Everyone who knew Glasgow and the working of the Forbes-Mackenzie Act was aware that the bonâ fide traveller could always obtain liquor on Sunday, and that every inn that had four bed- rooms was a house of call for the bonâ fide traveller, and that there were many of them. On the Clyde steamers drinking went on with little or no regulation. And when once it was proved, as he had conclusively proved, that there could not be absolute Sunday closing, it became a question of degree, and they must draw a line somewhere. He thought that he had indicated that line in advocating the entire prevention of spirit drinking and the reduction of hours. Spirit drinking was the root of most of the evils which arose from intemperance; and it was the drinking which took place in the last hour or two which did the greatest mischief to public order. He thought the question was ripe for legislation; but it would not be wise to legislate against the feeling of the country. He thought the plans he had suggested would be backed by the country. They could not have complete Sunday closing, and he hoped the House would support the proposal of his hon. Friend, in order that he might amend it afterwards.

MR. BLAKE

said, he was glad to bear his testimony to the beneficial effects of Sunday closing in Ireland. The arrests for Sunday drunkenness had gone down 70 per cent since the Act passed. The consumption of drink was less by £1,250,000 in 1879 than in 1878. And almost every Judge of Assize had referred to the decrease of crime and drunkenness since Sunday closing became the law. It was natural at first to connect these results with the distress; but in 1846–7–8, concurrently with distress, there was an increase of drunkenness. He could testify from his own experience to the happy results that had followed Sunday closing, and could well believe that a similar boon would be a great Messing to this country. During the agitation of the question he was frequently assured by many publicans that it would give them great satisfaction to be compelled to close. It was incumbent on Members who supported the closing of public-houses to do what they could to provide the working classes with other means of recreation than those furnished by the public-houses. They ought, therefore, to support the opening of museums, and to do what they could to promote working men's clubs, for in that way the people could be weaned from that which was their greatest curse.

MR. COURTAULD

concurred in the remarks of the hon. Member for South Durham. (Mr. Pease), and, in fact, he had taken the wind out of his sails. If total Sunday closing were carried, it would be essentially class legislation of the worst character, because it would interfere with the poor, while it would leave the rich alone. The rich man had his cellar to go to, and could always drink what and when he liked; but the poor man had, as it were, to buy his liquor from hand to mouth. The practical effect of this Resolution would be to prevent people drinking on Sunday what he considered to be, in moderation, a wholesome beverage. The staple drink of this country was beer, and beer bought on Saturday for Sunday drinking could not be kept in jugs and bottles as fresh and as wholesome as it ought to be. He could understand that indoor drinking was a temptation to the poor man on his leisure day, and that open public-houses might be sometimes a nuisance; but it was a perfectly distinct thing to open them for the sale of beer to be carried away for consumption. Then, what was the traveller to do if the public-houses were to be closed on Sunday? It was alleged that the working classes were in favour of total Sunday closing; but he was not sure that was borne out by the Petitions, which were signed in many cases by those whom Sunday closing would not affect. This Motion would be a great interference with what was called the liberty of the subject, and he was surprised to find that amongst the supporters of the Motion there were many Members who had always stood up for individual freedom. There were men who denounced the fining of a man for not having his children vaccinated as great tyranny; but who looked upon a Bill for total Sunday closing as mild and beneficent legislation, although it would deprive the poor man of his Sunday beer. He trusted that if the measure were carried one effect of it would be to stimulate the formation of working men's clubs. He had always done his best to help forward these institutions, because in them there were few inducements for men to drink more than they should. Men in working men's clubs could take as little liquor as they liked, or, if they preferred it, none at all, for they would be under no obligation to drink for the good of the house, as they were in the public-house. He should vote against the original Amendment, and should gladly support one to the effect suggested by the hon. Member for South Durham.

MR. STAVELEY HILL

quite agreed with what had fallen from the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease) that the country was not now ripe—if, indeed, it ever should be ripe—for legislation that went the length of total Sunday closing. Those who had conducted the temperance movement deserved all honour, especially the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), and those to whom the country was deeply indebted, for their efforts in making temperance a popular question. But popular as it was, and popular as he would ever hope it might be, he did not think that in this country they would ever reach the point at which they would enforce total abstinence upon those who might be unwilling to adopt it. When he had heard the Mover of the Resolution, the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Stevenson), speak on behalf of total Sunday closing, he had certainly expected to hear him carry the proposition to its full and logical conclusion, and to have done away with the reservation as to the bonâ fide traveller. What did the bonâ fide traveller mean? Simply that a person who was physically separated by distance from his own cellar should be enabled to make use of the cellar of a publican. What difference in principle was there between this man and the man who was physically separated by a want of money from keeping in his house what he might want? If the one should be allowed to have drink on Sunday, why should not the other? He understood that the hon. Member for South Durham wished, by his Amendment, rather to indicate the direction in which they ought to proceed than to bind them down to its exact terms; and to that extent he went entirely with that hon. Member. Having himself had to deal with the Licensed Victuallers, he could say that he had always found them to be generally a well-conducted body carrying on a difficult trade, and most willing to have their hours reasonably shortened. He felt convinced that some hour might be hit upon which should be suitable to the Licensed Victuallers, and conducive to the temperance of the public without putting them to any inconvenience. They had been told by an hon. Member from Ireland (Mr. Blake) that the Act which had been passed for that country had been a success—that the arrests for drunkenness on Sunday were fewer; and he hoped they would succeed in fixing such an hour as would not inconvenience the Licensed Victuallers in this country, and would tend to further improve the habits of the people.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he would have been glad if he could have been a silent listener to that interesting debate; but, from the Office he had the honour to hold, it was hardly possible for him to give a vote on that occasion without stating the reasons which actuated it. He had to look at the Resolution of his hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Stevenson); and it seemed to him that no one—and especially one who occupied any responsible position with reference to it—could vote for such a Resolution without being prepared to give immediate effect to it. The Resolution differed very materially from the one submitted to the House the other night by the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Law-son), which stated a general principle admitting of many interpretations, and capable of being applied in various ways —namely, the principle of Local Option. The present one was not such a Resolution, because it stated distinctly that a particular thing was to be done—namely, that every public-house in England should be closed on Sunday. It was an absolute and peremptory Resolution; it did not say that the law should be amended, that the hours should be further limited; but that all public-houses should be closed. His right hon. Friend at the head of the Government had the other night pointed out, in the discussion on the Resolution of the hon. Member for Carlisle, that that was, above all, a question on which public opinion ought to govern, and that Ministers were bound to follow, but could not lead public opinion on a matter of that kind. And, therefore, the question they had to consider was whether the public opinion of England demanded or justified the adoption of such a course as that now proposed? The Lords Committee, certainly in no spirit adverse to the end at which his hon. Friend aimed, had declared in their Report their precise opinion that the country was not yet ripe for entire Sunday closing. As far as he knew, that was an accurate statement. His hon. Friend the Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease), he might add, in his eminently judicial speech, had pointed out that the number of Petitions which had been presented to the House in favour of the Resolution was not much greater than that of those which had been presented against it. This, therefore, did not point to anything like an overwhelming preponderance of opinion. Now, the House well knew what was the case of the Irish Sunday Closing Bill. In almost every one of the numerous divisions on that Bill he had voted in its favour, because he was satisfied of the entire unanimity of Irish opinion on the subject. They had had evidence in every possible way—by Petitions, by representations from persons of all classes and opinions, and with a singular unanimity on the part of the Irish Members on both sides of the House—that the intervention of Parliament was justified, and, indeed, required. But could anybody say that anything like a similar unanimity of opinion on the subject prevailed in this country? He would confess that he himself was unable to come to that conclusion. He might also observe that the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for South Shields went further than the Irish Bill. Ireland, as the House was well aware, was not rich in great towns, yet five of the chief towns of that country were omitted from the operation of the Irish Bill; while his hon. Friend did not propose to make an exception even in favour of the Metropolis. The hon. Member for Carlisle had invited them to found temperance reform upon the corner stone of Local Option. Well, he (Sir William Harcourt) had voted, the other evening, in support of the principle of Local Option; but the proposal embodied in the present Resolution was absolutely inconsistent with that principle, for it was to be carried into effect whether a community desired that it should be so or not. There were, therefore, two principles of temperance reform; and he could not help feeling that, however excellent might be the object of a Motion such as that before the House, it was possible, by going too far, to defeat the object which they were all anxious to attain, and that any violent action in advance of public opinion, so far from promoting, might injure the cause of temperance. His hon. Friend the Member for South Durham, who seemed to him to have made a very good speech against the Resolution, was yet going to vote for it with a view to amending it after it had passed. He, however, did not feel himself able to take that course. He was expressing only his own views, and was not in any sense speaking for the Government as a whole, this being a subject upon which every man might vote according to his own views. There was some advantage in the form in which this Resolution was submitted, because it followed upon the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair; and, consequently, the Motion which would be put from the Chair practically amounted to the Previous Question. The hon. Member for South Shields had put his proposition in so absolute a form that he was unable to support it; and he did not see how the House could vote for such a Resolution, which was direct and precise, unless it really meant that it could be immediately carried into effect.

SIR E. ASSHETON CROSS

There is no person in this House who does not wish to do all he can to promote the cause of temperance, and the only fault I find with persons who are naturally anxious upon such a subject as this is that they may make up their minds in what particular way the object is to be accomplished, and unless others agree with them in that particular way, they will not believe you are as anxious as they are to promote temperance. I make the greatest possible allowance for the conclusions at which people arrive, because no person who really has the interest of the community at heart can possibly see the crime, misery, and vice which come from drunkenness and not feel his heart stirred to do all in his power to alleviate that misery and put an end to that state of things. But when we feel how necessary it is to do something, we are often in danger of doing that something rashly, and bringing about a condition of affairs which cannot by any possibility last. With regard to the proposition before us, I think it is a fair sample of what I spoke about. If you could see that public opinion would carry you out in what you are going to do, I do not think there is a man on either side of the House who would not be for the total closing of public- houses on Sundays. I mean if it could be carried out in accordance with the reasonable wishes of the people. But the people really are not ready for such a change. There is a strong feeling in this country that something ought to be done to put a stop to drunkenness; but this particular step, if it were carried to-night and passed into a law, would not have any practical effect of that kind. If this Resolution became law to-night, you would have—I do not say before the end of this Session, but certainly the first thing next Session—to repeal it. You cannot legislate in this way in advance of public opinion; you cannot legislate even quite up to it. So far from effecting the object you have in view, you would do a great deal to check the public opinion in favour of temperance. I was not here to hear the speech of the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Stevenson), who moved this Resolution; but to my mind there is a great contrast between the hon. Member who introduced this Motion and the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease) who has spoken upon it, and I will tell the House where I think the difference lies. The hon. Member who has introduced this Motion has done it for the sole purpose of doing all he can to promote temperance by physical force. The hon. Member for South Durham has studied this question in all its bearings, as I know, because when I had the honour of holding the Office which is now held by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), he came to me and asked me if I would give him facilities for obtaining information and forming an opinion on the subject. Let me take London for a moment. Can you imagine it would be any more possible to shut up public-houses now than when you stopped Sunday trading in London some years ago? It is a thing which is absolutely impossible. I am sure the Home Secretary would find before that law had been in force for a month that he would have the greatest possible difficulty in keeping the peace of the town. I said when I was in Office that if Sunday closing was carried I would not be responsible for the peace of London. I say the same now that I am out of Office; and I am certain if the Home Secretary looks into the matter he will come to the same conclusion. There are large numbers of people walking about with nothing to do on Sundays, and many of them, I am sorry to say, take a great deal more than they ought to do, not only on Sundays, but on other days; but quite irrespective of all that, there is a vast population in London who, if this proposition were carried, would have to change their whole habits of life. Where are young persons who live in lodgings to get their dinner? Why are they to be deprived of their glass of beer on Sunday more than any other day? I want to know whether they will not say—"It is all very well for you people to legislate for us; what are you going to do for yourselves? Are you going to close your Clubs?" There is a great difference in this matter between Ireland and England. The regular drink of Ireland is not beer, but spirits. The drink of England is beer. A society for which I have the highest possible admiration—the Church of England Temperance Society —have often been before me, and they have told me that a man might buy his beer on Saturday night and drink it in the middle of the day on Sunday. Why, the thing cannot be done. It would not be beer, but almost poison by the middle of Sunday. You cannot change the habits of the people by legislation. You are trying to change the innocent, the necessary habits of the people because you want to prevent that which is bad. As regards the point raised by the hon. Member for South Durham, I take an entirely different view of the subject. I should be very glad indeed to see the hours for the sale of liquors on Sundays curtailed, both in the middle of the day and also in the evening. I do not think the State ought to be called upon to pass sumptuary laws either upon this subject or any other. The chief duty of the State is to see that order is preserved. There can be no doubt that, owing to the late hour of public-houses being open, order is endangered, and, so far as that is concerned, the State has a perfect right to step in and say—"You shall not have your wish granted at the sacrifice of the order which the State has a right to preserve." I should be very much in favour of seeing the hours for selling strong liquors on Sundays curtailed, because I do not think it is necessary that public-houses should be kept open as long as they are. The public order is not maintained as it should be, owing to their being open so long. If you take your stand upon that, and not go into sumptuary laws, which have always failed in this country from the earliest times, when persons were not allowed to eat more than so many courses at dinner; if you ground your law on the maintenance of public order, you are on a safe footing. There is one other point I want to impress strongly on this House, and that is that this question should be dealt with once and for ever, or, at least, for a very long time. The Prime Minister told us the other night the Government were prepared to consider the whole question of the Licensing Laws, to consolidate them, and to bring forward a measure on the subject before long. I say that should be done. The trade, however, should not be harassed more than any other trade, and the bringing forward of such Motions as the present was virtually harassing them. The Acts of 1872 and 1874 worked great good. I am prepared to say that you can now go further in the way of legislation than you could have done in those years, because the growth of public opinion is in your favour. Let us not, however, check that growth of opinion by passing such a Resolution as this. If you pass this Resolution you will do harm to the cause of temperance, and drive people away who are willing to help you; and when the Government measure is brought forward you will have more chance of passing it than if the Resolution before the House were carried. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, who has just sat down, said that he was rather in favour of the Resolution passed the other day with reference to Local Option, and that it would be wise to proceed in that direction. I hope before the Government brings forward their promised measure they will make up their own minds as a Government. The right hon. Gentleman said he hoped it would be understood that he was expressing only his private opinion, and that he was speaking as the Member for Derby and not as Secretary of State. I deny that the right hon. Gentleman as Secretary of State could speak on this subject merely as the Member for Derby.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I did not say so. What I said was, that in the Office I held I felt bound to express my opinion, but that I did not profess to speak for all the Members of the Cabinet.

SIR E. ASSHETON CROSS

Wait a moment, and you will see what I mean. On a question of this kind I do not think there ought to be a difference between Members of the same Government. You were discussing the other day the question as to Local Option, and the right hon. Gentleman said that he was in favour of Local Option on one part of the question, but that, in his opinion, Local Option on the other part of the question could not be sustained. That only makes my case stronger. We had the Secretary of State a promoter of Local Option, while the Prime Minister was against it. The suggestion of the Prime Minister was that it was a very grave question which required discussion. The right hon. Gentleman did not know whether there ought to be a restriction on the number of public-houses or free trade altogether. When the Government brought forward that great measure which they were pledged to do by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State this evening, I hope they will deal with the whole question and at an early period. But let the Government make up its mind. The Prime Minister says one thing, the Secretary of State another. The Government ought to make up its mind whether they will have free trade or restriction. I think the introducer of this Resolution has made a great mistake. I think it would check public opinion, and I hope it will not be pressed to a division. If it be, I must vote against it. I will follow the Secretary of State, who has said the proper course will be to move that the Speaker should leave the Chair, which is equivalent to the Previous Question. The Government has undertaken to deal with the whole question next Session. [Sir WILLIAM HAE-COURT dissented.] At all events, the Prime Minister has said so. Whenever that measure is brought in, I and my Colleagues will give it careful consideration. [A laugh.] Notwithstanding that laugh, I can honestly say that if it is calculated to promote temperance without breaking through the general principles of legislation, I and my Colleagues will give it careful consideration, not in a spirit of hostility, but with every desire to support and carry it into effect.

Question put.

The House divided: —Ayes 117; Noes 153: Majority 36.

AYES.
Ashmead-Bartlett, E. Leamy, E.
Bailey, Sir J. R. Leeman, J. J.
Bass, A. Leigh, R.
Bentinck, rt. hn. G. C. Leighton, S.
Birkbeck, E. Litton, E. P.
Blackburne, Col. J. I. Loder, R.
Broadley, W. H. H. Long, W. H.
Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. P. Lowther, hon. W.
Lyons, E. D.
Bruce, rt. hon. Lord C. Macdonald, A.
Burnaby, G. E. S. Makins, Colonel
Buxton, Sir E. J. Manners,rt.hon.LordJ.
Churchill, Lord E. Martin, P.
Clive, Col. hon. G. W. Master, T. W. C.
Cobbold, T. C. Maxwell, Sir H. E.
Coddington, W. Miles, Sir P. J. W.
Coope, O. E. Mills, Sir C. H.
Courtauld, G. Monckton, F.
Crompton-Roberts, C. Morgan, hon. F.
Cross, rt. hn. Sir E. A. Murray, C. J.
Cubitt, right hon. G. Musgrave, Sir E. C.
Daly, J. Northcote, H. S.
Davenport, H. T. O'Gorman Mahon, Col.
Duckham, T. The
Dyott, Colonel E. Onslow, D.
Egerton, Sir P. G. Patrick, E. W. C.
Egerton, hon. W. Philips, R. H.
Emlyn, Viscount Portman, hn. W. H.B.
Estcourt, G. S. Powell, W.
Fawcett, rt. hon. H. Power, E.
Feilden,Major- General E. J. Puleston, J. H.
Rendlesham, Lord
Fenwick-Bisset, M. Rolls, J. A.
Filmer, Sir E. Ross, A. H.
Folkestone, Viscount Rothschild, Sir N.M.de
Forster, Sir C. Russell, Sir C.
Fort, R. Schreiber, C.
Fremantle, hon. T. F. Scott, Lord H.
Gabbett, D. F. Scott, M. D.
Galway, Viscount Seely, C. (Lincoln)
Gardner, E. Richard-son- Severne, J. E.
Smith, A.
Garnier, J. C. Smithwick, J. F.
Goldney, Sir G. Talbot, C. R. M.
Guest, M. J. Talbot, J. G.
Halsey, T. F. Thornhill, T.
Hamilton, right hon. Lord G. Thynne, Lord H. F.
Tollemache,hon. W. F
Harcourt, rt. hon. Sir W. G. V. V. Torrens, W. T. M'C.
Tottenham, A. L.
Hardcastle, J. A. Walrond, Col. W. H.
Hartington, Marq. of Warton, C. N.
Harvey, Sir E. B. Watney, J.
Hayter, Sir A. D. Wiggin, H.
Hermon, E. Williams, 0. L. C.
Holland, Sir H. T. Wilmot, Sir J. E.
Holms, J. Wodehouse, E. R.
Hope,rt.hn.A.J.B. B. Wolff, Sir H. D.
Jackson, W. L. Yorke, J. R.
Johnson, W. M.
Labouchere, H. TELLERS.
Lacon, Sir E. H. K. Hill, S.
Lawrence, Sir T. Worms, Baron H. de
Laycock, R.
NOES.
Agar - Robartes, hon. T. C. Illingworth, A.
Ingram, W. J.
Allen, H. G. James, C.
Allen, W. S. James, W. H.
Anderson, G. Jardine, R.
Archdale, W. H. Jenkins, D. J.
Armitstead, G. Joicey, Colonel J.
Barran, J. Lambton, hon. F. W.
Baxter, rt. hon. W. E. Lawson, Sir W.
Beresford, G. De la P. Leatham, E. A.
Biddulph, M. Leatham, W.
Biggar, J. G. Leigh, hon. G. H. C.
Blake, J. A. Lewis, C. E.
Bolton, J. C. Lloyd, M.
Borlase, W. C. Lusk, Sir A.
Brett, B. B. Mackie, R. B.
Bright, J. (Manchester) Mackintosh, C. F.
Broadhurst, H. Macliver, P. S.
Brogden, A. M'Arthur, A.
Brown, A. H. M'Arthur, W.
Bryce, J. M'Clure, Sir T.
Burt, T. M'Coan, J. C.
Buszard, M. C. M'Intyre, A.E. J.
Buxton, P. W. M'Lagan, P.
Byrne, G. M. M'Laren, C. B. B.
Caine, W. S. M'Minnies, J. G.
Campbell, J. A. Magniac, C.
Carbutt, E. H. Maitland, W. F.
Cavendish, Lord E. Mappin, F. T.
Chambers, Sir T. Mason, H.
Courtney, L. H. Middleton, R. T.
Cowan, J. Milbank, F. A.
Craig, W. Y. Moore, A.
Cunliffe, Sir R. A. Morgan, rt. hn. G. O.
Davey, H. Morley, S.
Davies, D. Noel, E.
Davies, R. O'Connor, A.
Dilke, A. W. Palmer, C. M.
Dundas, hon. J. C. Palmer, G.
Edwards, P. Palmer, J. H.
Ewart, W. Parker, C. S.
Farquharson, Dr. B. Pease, A.
Firth, J. F. B. Pease, J. W.
Fitzwilliam, hon. C. W. W. Peddie, J. D.
Playfair,rt.hon. L.
Fitzwilliam, hn. W. J. Potter, T. B.
Fitzwilliam, hon. W. Powell, W. R. H.
Flower, C. Power, J. O'C.
Foljambe, F. G. S. Price, Sir B. G.
Fowler, H. H. Pugh, L. P.
Fowler, W. Ramsay, J.
Fry, L. Ramsay, Lord
Fry, T. Redmond, W. A.
Givan, J. Reed, Sir C.
Gladstone, H. J. Reed, E. J.
Gladstone, W. H. Richard, H.
Gourley, E. T. Richardson, J. N.
Gower, hon. E. F. L. Roberts, J.
Grafton, F. W. Russell, Lord A.
Grant, A. Rylands, P.
Greer, T. St. Aubyn, Sir J.
Grey, A. H. G. Sheridan, H. B.
Havelock-Allan, Sir H. Stafford, Marquess of
Henderson, F. Stanton, W. J.
Heneage, E. Stewart, J.
Herschell, Sir F. Sullivan A. M.
Hibbert, J. T. Thompson, T. C.
Holland, S. Trevelyan, G. O.
Howard, E. S. Verney, Sir H.
Howard, J. Vivian, A. P.
Hughes, W. B. Vivian, H. H.
Waugh, E. Wilson, C. H.
Webster, Dr. J. Wilson, Sir M.
Wedderburn, Sir D. Winn, R.
Whitley, E. Woodall, W.
Whitwell, J.
Whitworth, B. TELLERS.
Williams, B. T. Birley, H.
Williams, W. Stevenson, J. C.
Williamson, S.

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

MR. J. W. PEASE

said, that inasmuch as he had already addressed the House with regard to the Amendment which stood in his name on the Paper, he should not then enter again upon an explanation of it. He begged to move his Amendment.

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, To leave out all the words after the word "apply," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "as nearly as possible to the whole of that day, making such provision only for the sale during limited hours of beer, ale, porter, cider, or perry, for consumption off the premises in the country; and, for the requirements of the inhabitants of the Metropolitan district, as may be found needful to secure public co-operation in the alteration of the Law,"—(Mr Pease,) —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the' said proposed Amendment."

MR. STEVENSON

said, that as his Motion had then become the substantial one, he wished to say that the terms of it were precisely the same as those of the Motion on which the Sunday Closing Act for Ireland had been afterwards founded, with the exception of the simple alteration of the words "England and Wales" instead of Ireland. That Motion had been introduced by the late hon. Member for County Londonderry (Mr. Smyth), and was carried by a large majority, with which the present Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt) voted.

Question put, and negatived.

Words added.

Main Question, as amended, put.

Resolved, That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient that the Law which limits the hours of sale of intoxicating drinks on Sunday in England and Wales should be amended so as to apply as early as possible to the whole of that day, making such provision only for the sale during limited hours of beer, ale, porter, cider, or perry, for consumption off the premises in the country; and, for the requirements of the in-habitants of the Metropolitan district, as may he found needful to secure public co-operation in any alteration of the Law.